Its Time to get IRAQ

by Amazing 87 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Liberty

  Hi Amazing,

  I really enjoy your posts. War is a terrible thing but it is, sadly, often the only recourse. Some dear friends will be put into danger and some people will die but this must be done. It is one of many harsh realities that nondelusional adults must face. As JWs we hid from realities like old age, death, corrupt governments, and war because we fooled ourselves into thinking that an invisible super being would solve all of our problems for us. Most of us here now know that we must face these ugly realities on our own.

  Many anti war activists support political ideologies which actually end up causing war. Leftist philosophies like Communism, Socialism, radical Environmentalism and Luditism (anti technology/progress) perpetuate the ignorance, corruption, and poverty which breeds situations where war and aggression are seen as attractive options rather than as last resorts to be avoided. Human life is cheap even to the individual in such cultures, hence suicide bombers/hijackers and warriors. Most of the World has not yet embraced the Age of Reason and its resultant love of science, progress, prosperity, and liberty. Much of the World refuses to acknowledge that the Western powers are rich because of our philsophical base. They lie to themselves in order to preserve their pride in outdated and faulty beliefs so excuses for the West's superiority are formulated.

  These include the myth that these 3rd World countries are poor because of Western exploitation. They forget that poverty and ignorance were the norm for their cultures long before the Age of Reason and the rise of Western powers. Their poverty and lack of liberty are the results of ancient beliefs which are reincarnated and recycled over and over again into philosophies which promote diminishment of the individual and glorification of the community with a despotic ruling class. In short, the 3rd World is NOT in bad shape because of too much Capitalism but because there is not enough. As the 3rd World steals the West's advanced war technology instead of embracing our philosophies it will become increasingly necessary to protect ourselves by turning our force against their aggression. If we do not fight the whole World will be plunged back into superstitious darkness and the chaos which was the norm for thousands of years. Death, starvation, oppression, and suffering will once again become a dailey routine for us as it was long ago before the Age of Reason.

  Edited by - Liberty on 6 September 2002 16:39:46
• 

  ThiChi

  """I think Bush is playing the "terrorist victim" card and taking too many liberties using the 9/11 tragedy to take care of America's unfinished business. Nothing worse than using a tragedy to advance an agenda you already had before it happened."""

  Bold statements with no proof. Before 911, Bush was accused of isolationism and not taking more interest in the world. Now, liberals like yourself have reversed, stating that Bush now has a world intervention plan. If this was not such a serious matter, I would be laughing my A** off right now.....

  Dont worry, As history has shown over and over, it is the brave and undaunted that have raised to the occasion to defeat such evil in the world while others can only reap the benefits of these brave actions.

  Edited by - thichi on 6 September 2002 11:22:41

  Edited by - thichi on 6 September 2002 11:32:17
• 

  ThiChi

  ""Liberals think they are too sophisticated to reduce themselves to combat or any violence, and our enemies are way too much the victim to be held accountable for their violence. I'm not trying to illustrate absurdity by being absurd. This is just a sad reality.""

  ""Saddam Hussein has done more in the way of environmental pollution than all the world combined with the oil well fires after '91's war, and yet the Earth Summit doesnt hold him accountable. The same goes for human rights. Saddam Hussein is getting a total pass, and who's being blamed for trying to do something about it? We are, the United States.""
• 

  expatbrit

  Yes I agree that it's time for Mr Hussain to go.

  He should be removed not only for what he might do in the future, but also for what he has done in the past.

  He has developed and used weapons of mass destruction on his own people without second thought. Unlike the US and other Western powers, he has no hesitation or moral considerations before using them. He has used them in the past, he IS still trying to develop them further, and he WILL use them to advance his megalomaniac plans in the future.

  He has demonstrated his desire to control the oil production countries in the middle East with his unprovoked invasion of Kuwait, which if successful would have been merely the first step. Do you really want to allow him to develop nuclear weapons? If he had had nuclear weapons ten years ago, how would Desert Storm have fared, do you think?

  He has had murdered (and has pulled the trigger personally) many people who voice any disagreement with him.

  During the Gulf War, he tried to ignite a general Israeli-Arab conflict by firing missiles into Israel, even though he knew he had lost the conflict. He then torched the oilfields, causing untold environmental damage.

  He has demonstrated that his desire for weapons of mass destruction isof more worth to him than the lives of the Iraqi people. The sanctions have caused widespread hunger and disease. While the sanctions were imposed by the West, the fact remains that he could have ended them at any time simply by complying with UN requirements.

  Why should this type of monster be allowed to continue ruling a country and bringing instability and suffering to the entire world? What he has done is bad enough. He is the worst tyrant on the planet. Take him out now before he gets the chance to do much worse.

  Expatbrit

  Edited by - expatbrit on 6 September 2002 11:39:57
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Simon,

  Saudi Arabia is no ally. Could they be another Iraq in 20 years. Weapons wise, sure, but they don't have the population base. How long does oil remain radioactive?
• 

  ThiChi

  Yerusalyim:

  I agree 100% People forget it was a majority of Saudi Nationals that participated in 911. They have held fund raisers and funneled much money to these bastards .

  Edited by - thichi on 6 September 2002 12:9:33
• 

  expatbrit

  Metatron said:

  I haven't read a single commentator talk about what benefit a new Iraqi regime
  could bring. Techmically, they are a secular state - imagine a wide swath of
  secular, social democratic Muslim states stretching across Turkey all the way to
  Afghanistan and eventually including former Soviet nations like Kazakstan.

  It would be an enormous advance in world peace.

  Yes it would. Unfortunately it would also mean the end of power for the current regimes in Arab countries. Hence their reluctance to support a campaign to remove Mr. Hussain.

  Expatbrit
• 

  Simon

  Farkel

  That's like saying the Governing Body and all corrupt dub leaders should be removed with as little force as possible.

  Of course I think that! Isn't it better to not hurt any innocents if at all possible? While a huge bomb in bethel may seem like a good idea initially, not everyone would deserve it ... some crack snipers would be much better. NOTE: I am not advocating bombing bethel or shooting anyone - this is just an analogy.

  I do not think that it would be wrong to remove Saddam ... but ... if things are to get better, and not worse (or at least carry on as they are) then we need to do things differently. If we just bomb the crap out of the people and stick someone else in there that the people hate then we will end up back here in 20 years time with resentment against the west except the weapons available then are likely to be easier to deply, more powerful and generally not good news.

  Should we have bombed Hitler and Germany before they went to war? Yes, definitely ... with hindsight. But how would history have painted us? Perhaps Hitler stopped an even worse madman and carnage by invading Poland! ... who is to know? (this is starting to sound like the episode where Dr Who had the chance to destroy the Dalleks before they existed).

  The only certain thing is that he is a *bad* person and a risk to the world BUT we must make sure that while we are removing him, we do not create a void for someone just as bad to step into and give lots of people just cause to do so.

  BTW: Yes, I know they were called the Kalleds then
• 

  William Penwell

  I was watching something on the TV last night and it was referring to the unprovoked attack of a US back Israel on Palestine. They said that about 16,000 innocent men, women and children were killed. They went on to make the point that in the minds of the Arab countries this was no different than what bin Laden's terrorists did to the US on September 11. In the most Arab's minds it was just getting even with the US for their foreign policies.

  I agree the US should have taken out Saddam 12 years ago when they had the chance. Now for them to invade Iraq will only escalate the situation. Those supporting Saddam will get even with the US either tomorrow or 10 years from now and the escalating of violence will continue.

  Will
• 

  expatbrit

  This is part of an excellent Economist editorial on why the status quo cannot continue: The dangers of the status quo

  It is nigh on impossible for normal people to put themselves into the minds of the sort who planned or carried out last year's slaughter, which makes it also hard to be sure whether others are now more, or less, likely to do something similar. A few things are clear, however. One is that, although no mass anti-American movement has emerged, there are still plenty of extremists in the Islamic, but especially the Arab, world. Another is that the march of technology is making it easier all the time for such groups to plan atrocities but also to use the ghastliest weapons. Third, and perhaps most important, is the fact that all the possible sources of anti-American anger, justified or not, remain intact: bases in the Saudi holy lands; sanctions and no-fly zones for Iraq; bloody conflict in the Middle East, with American support for Israel; and repressive, alienating Arab regimes, especially in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, that are thought to enjoy America's backing.

  The events of September 11th showed what unscrupulous, murderous people can achieve. But they also showed how dangerous is the status quo in the Arab world

  In the past year, the biggest changes have come in America and in Central Asia, both in Afghanistan and in the surrounding countries (see articles here and here). Now, and for the coming year, the main debate is over whether the next wave of change will or should come in the Arab world, begun with a regime change in Iraq but not ending there (see articles here and here). Or whether to attack Saddam Hussein would be to take an unnecessary risk, damaging in its own right but also destabilising for the rest of the Arab world. Or, in the end, over whether there is any link between the memory of September 11th 2001 and the danger of Mr Hussein and his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

  For the past few months, this debate has become frenzied but incoherent. The great virtue shown since September 11th by America in general, and President George Bush in particularthat patient determinationhas become a vice on this issue. The more time that goes by without a clear decision from him on what America will do, in Iraq itself but also with regard to the United Nations, the more that a vacuum has been created into which has rushed confusion, rumours of divisions within the administration or between America and its supposed alliesand Iraqi ministers seeking to sow even more confusion and division.

  Now, at long last, an effort seems to be under way to create coherenceor, at least, to provide a coherent decision about which to argue. This weekend, Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair, is to fly to President Bush's official retreat, Camp David, for talks about Iraq; Mr Bush says he also plans phone conversations with the leaders of France, China and Russia, the other three permanent members of the UN Security Council; and on September 12th Mr Bush is due to address the UN General Assembly, which gives him a fine opportunity to present his plans, his arguments and some of his evidence.

  Much of that effort at persuasion, and much of the debate about it, will centre on Saddam Hussein. So it should: the Iraqi dictator's violation of international agreements, his efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction, his willingness to use them against his own people and his neighbours, his declared territorial ambitions, all make him a dangerous man who needs at last to be removed from power. But as that effort, and the debate, proceeds, the memory of September 11th needs also to be kept firmly in mind. The events of that day showed what unscrupulous, murderous people can achieve. But they also showed how dangerous is the status quo in the Arab world in general, of which Iraq is but a part.

  If terrorist attacks by groups such as al-Qaeda are to be made less likely in future, that status quo needs to be changed, in numerous ways. Those ways do begin with Iraq, for the current policy of containment through debilitating sanctions and bombing raids from bases in the Gulf is not sustainable. They also, though, begin in Israel and Palestine, where a parallel effort needs to be made to create circumstances in which the two states can live securely side by side. And they move on to the Arab countries themselves, where at the very least the blame for those nations' economic and social failures needs to be pinned on the local regimes, not on outside powers, which are forced by history or convenience to support them.

  In the coming months, probably the most seductive argument that will be deployed against a war in Iraq will be the idea that it would threaten the Arab world's stability. Yet it is that very stabilityor, rather, sterilitythat created al-Qaeda, its supposed grievances, and September 11th. Remember.